One industry won't back Fred Thompson [Hollyweird] (Rudy & Mitt have fans there, though)

The Los Angeles Times ^ | September 7, 2007 | TINA DAUNT

[2ndDivisionVet]

POLITICIAN turned actor turned politician Fred Thompson may have a Hollywood strategy when it comes to his presidential run (after all, he did announce his candidacy this week on the Jay Leno show), but he'll have a hard time getting a Hollywood audience.

For starters, the entertainment industry Democrats are much too busy shuttling between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraisers to even think about helping out a fellow actor, let alone a conservative Republican one. And the Hollywood Republicans -- what few there are -- already have yard signs out for the far more moderate Rudolph W. Giuliani.

So what's Thompson to do? Take the show on the road and rake in the dollars elsewhere. The place that made the former Tennessee senator rich as an actor cannot be counted on to pour cash into his presidential run, especially if he's going around bashing gay marriage and Roe vs. Wade. The minute he comes out strong against embryonic stem cell research -- a fervent Hollywood cause -- he'll be banished from every cocktail party north of Sunset Boulevard.

"You're asking me if people here will support Fred Thompson?" said Donna Bojarsky, a longtime industry political consultant. "How do I put it? No. No. And no."

Politico Andy Spahn, who has enough Hollywood clients to pack a Directors Guild gala, was more diplomatic.

"I think he will raise some relationship money from people who know him and have worked with him," Spahn said. "But I don't think he'll raise much beyond that here. His political views are out of sync with the community."

And Spahn is not just talking about the Hollywood Democrats. Thompson's political views are at odds with those of many industry Republicans, who tend to be fiscally conservative but socially progressive.

[puroresu]

There are three reasons the left invented the term “progressive” (which is Marxist in origin):

1) It fits into their idea of historical inevitability. Marxism is inevitable, you know, so why fight it?

2) It wins over dimbulbs who latch onto anything if it seems “new” and “fashionable”. So ancient, barbarous practices such as promiscuity and abortion get repackaged as “progressive” and a lot of nitwits think they’re brand new.

3) It covers up for the fact that liberalism can’t create a civilization. Imagine a great civilization being built on wealth redistribution, appeasement of enemies, promiscuity, homosexuality, egalitarianism, and secularism. You can’t imagine it because it would never happen. Therefore, liberalism can never be traditional. So its proponents are forced to advertise it as new to provide political cover for its destructiveness.

[tarheelswamprat]

re: "Fiscal Conservative - Social Progressive"

I call BS on this label.

You pegged it. Next time someone makes this claim just ask them "How can you have a fiscally conservative government and still pay for all those government programs the social progressives you elect will enact?

[Vision Thing]

Fred doesn’t need the support of the whackjobs in hollyweird.

If Fred can get ho-wood to support his oppenents, this would be even better. When ho-wood endorses a candidate, it's the political kiss of death for him or her. Even salami-baloney-george-clooney admitted it earlier this decade. One of clooless's own family members was unable to win a campaign, despite receiving a good dose of clooney's supposedly valuable ho-wood presence.

Receiving ho-wood endorsements is worst than meaningless: it's actually lethal.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

For starters, the entertainment industry Democrats are much too busy shuttling between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraisers to even think about helping out a fellow actor, let alone a conservative Republican one. And the Hollywood Republicans -- what few there are -- already have yard signs out for the far more moderate Rudolph W. Giuliani.

[tarheelswamprat]

There are three reasons the left invented the term “progressive” (which is Marxist in origin):...

Good points. Whenever somebody tells me their beliefs are progressive I like to tweak them by replying "You mean like cancer?"...

[puroresu]

#####My hackles go up when I hear, “I’m fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.” Hello??? Socially “progressive” causes are fiscally irresponsible!#####

Yep!

[JSDude1]

With good reguard for our fellow Conservatives out in California and Massachusetts: Can you think of ANY better argument for ‘States Rights’ and secession than it would end their polution through federalism upon some of the more sane states in the West and Mid-West and South?

[Captain Peter Blood]

Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Sam Elliott& Bo Derek will be there. The rest are IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Free State Four]

Well, Ronald Reagan could NEVER have been elected president of the United States unless he had the full backing, political and financial, of the Hollywood set. It was pivotal.

[MaxMax]

Add James Woods.

[iowamark]

“socially progressive” is LA Timesspeak for “favors abortion of children.”

[Finatic]

I agree. And while Fred wont pull the bulk of the Hollywood political establishment he will be backed by good people like Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, Tom Selleck and his common approach will draw out those in conservative Hollywood who otherwise would be keeping their mouths shut and quietly going about their business.

[wardaddy]

Well, Ronald Reagan could NEVER have been elected president of the United States unless he had the full backing, political and financial, of the Hollywood set. It was pivotal.

I don't remember it that way with all due respect...the older folks liked him and Nancy and I think Valenti supported him but the younger folks loathed him.

[Free State Four]

/s

[wardaddy]

sorry..